On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:53:55PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > We should return -EINVAL if get_cpu_device() fails.
>> >
>> > Fixes: 158c998ea44b ("ACPI / CPPC: add sysfs support to compute delivered performance")
>> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> > index d0d0504..e0ea8f5 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/cppc_acpi.c
>> > @@ -784,8 +784,10 @@ int acpi_cppc_processor_probe(struct acpi_processor *pr)
>> >
>> > /* Add per logical CPU nodes for reading its feedback counters. */
>> > cpu_dev = get_cpu_device(pr->id);
>> > - if (!cpu_dev)
>> > + if (!cpu_dev) {
>> > + ret = -EINVAL;
>>
>> ret is initialized here AFAICS.
>>
>> Do you that its value is not the right one?
>
> I'm looking at linux-next. It's set to zero but we presumably want to
> return an error code.
OK
It was slightly unclear what the bug was.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
